The Left is big on de-escalation of conflict. They insist on talk rather than action to address rioting, theft, and even violent assault. The one place where they will not use it is in politics. De-escalation of political conflict would require them to do something they are loath to -- debate ideas. The left is instead attacking our right to speech.
Try disagreeing with any element of leftist orthodoxy and see what happens. Challenging any of their core positions will not be met with robust debate, but with insults, cancellation, and even physical attack. Challenge them on:
- Climate change -- you’re a denier.
- Trans grooming of children -- you’re a homophobe.
- Affirmative action -- you’re a racist.
- Abortion -- you’re anti-human rights.
- 2020 election -- you’re part of the big lie.
The Left insists that words can be a form of assault. That’s a silly assertion that one’s opinion is somehow harmful to others. However, they use that claim as justification for “cancellation,” which really is an attack on the well-being of others. In the name of protecting against the harm of differing opinions:
- Pundits are deplatformed for challenging leftist narratives,
- Teachers are fired for stating scientific facts,
- Citizens are doxed or swatted for expressing opinions,
- Attorneys are threatened with disbarment for representing unfavored clients, and
- Medical licenses of doctors are challenged for opposing government/pharmaceutical industry recommendations.
Cancellation is a genuine attack on the physical wellbeing of those targeted.
It can happen to anyone, for the most trivial of reasons. Even showing common courtesy to a political opponent of the Left can trigger calls to deny one’s livelihood. Food Network star Guy Fieri made the unforgivable mistake of shaking Donald Trump’s hand at a public event. The Left is calling for his restaurants to be boycotted and his television shows to be cancelled.
But we’re supposed to have constitutionally protected rights to prevent disagreements from becoming attacks. Our Constitution is our pact of civilized behavior -- in which we agree to resolve our conflicts nonviolently. So, why isn’t the system working now? Because one the two political parties, and the government bureaucrats devoted to that party, have decided that the pact doesn’t serve them anymore. The Constitution stands between them and the political power they seek, so they’ve cast it aside.
In just the past three years, government orders have:
- Closed small businesses,
- Restricted access to churches,
- Limited our rights of movement and association,
- Challenged our right to parent our children,
- Undermined free and fair elections, and even
- Limited our freedom of speech.
We have grievances. Our law enforcement doesn’t even pretend to pursue justice anymore. “Public servants” behave as if they are our masters. Uncontrolled government growth has become a burden on our economy. Schools are indoctrinating our children. The Left insists that it is the arbiter of proper thinking. Our God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been sacrificed to enable corruption. And yet, we’re not even permitted to express our concerns without being censored by our own government. The pressure is building.
Thankfully, a federal judge has just released some of the pressure. Missouri and Louisiana brought a lawsuit against Joseph R. Biden, asserting that his administration harmed citizens by violating their constitutionally protected speech. On July 4, Judge Terry Doughty, Chief U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, enjoined the federal government from contacts with social media companies for purposes of stifling opposition opinions.
In his order, Judge Doughty cited a mountain of evidence that administration officials had sought to censor speech relative to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, pandemic protocols, COVID’s origin, election fraud, the economy, and even political parody – because making fun of Dems is now a threat to democracy or something.
Executive branch departments or agencies restricted under the injunction include: the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, NIAID, FBI, CISA, State Department, Food and Drug Administration, Treasury, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the Department of Commerce.
Judge Doughty has not decided the case on its merits. However, in his order, based on the evidence presented, he noted that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in court.
Unfortunately, Joe Biden is not in favor of releasing the pressure on the pressure cooker. He requested a stay on the injunction. Note what Joe Biden is not saying. He’s not saying that the evidence was wrong or mistakes were made. Were that the case, he could simply leave the injunction in place, state that he does not condone attempts at censorship, and order it stopped.
But Biden has said no such thing. Instead, he demanded that the injunction be lifted. Biden’s actions are the President of the United States stating that it is within his purview to censor opinions in opposition to his administration. He is declaring authority to violate the Constitution because our opinions may undermine his. With his challenge to the injunction, he has broken his oath of office and breached our pact of civilized behavior. But what the Left hasn’t considered, is that once a pact is breached, it is breached for everyone.
There will be a future other than the consolidated power the Left craves. Our polarization cannot continue indefinitely, and it will not resolve while our grievances remain unaddressed. Our current path is unsustainable. There will either be resolution or dissolution.
While it is not irreversible yet, dissolution is already underway. Americans are sorting themselves between blue and red states on the basis of ideology. A massive migration is underway. When the sorting is complete, the United States will cease to be “united.” The reds will pursue God, freedom, and capitalism; while the blues pursue Gaia, central control, and communism. We may yet see how that turns out, but recognize that divorce is rarely pleasant.
Alternatively, we can keep our union if we resolve our differences. That can be done verbally or nonverbally.
Verbal resolution would require us to stop cancelling each other and talk. We would need to reach a compromise that we can live with -- not on basic human rights, but on the social issues that animate both sides.
Nonverbal resolution will happen if we dispense with the debate, and work to crush each other with boycotts, censorship, cancellation, ostracization, or even violence. Nonverbal resolution will require us to fight it out until one side surrenders. In this scenario, one side will win and the other will lose. This appears to be the preferred path of the Left.
The government’s attempt to deny our God-given rights is not sustainable. Something will have to give.
Our Founders understood that our rights are gifts from God. Human rights cannot be cancelled -- only suppressed. They understood, because they had lived it, that suppression of rights does not result in peace and stability. It causes conflict and unrest.
Unaddressed grievances will continue to build until a breaking point is reached.
The Assault on Our Rights is Not Sustainable - American Thinker
